Luke Mewburn wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:16:47AM -0500, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> > Luke Mewburn wrote:
> >
> > > >  > Log Message:
> > > >  > use explicit name rather than __progname in openlog
> > > >
> > > > What's the point of this?
> > >
> > > because we're very inconsistent in the tree about whether we use
> > > __progname or the explicit name, with the explicit name seeming to
> > > have more use.
> >
> > IMO, changing from __progname to and explicit name is a big step
> > backwards.  I wish we won't do this.
>
> So, I just had look at the openlog() usage in the source tree, and
> this is what I discovered:

> I don't think I change the 13 applications that were using __progname
> as the ident arg to openlog() which I changed to being a static string
> back to __progname, and then also change the other 69 applications
> that were using a static ident to __progname.
>
> That seems like a backward step to me, especially in the portability
> stakes.

I've read the whole discussion befoer replying this time.  And I no longer
feel it's a step backwards, just sideways. :)

    -- Lennart